The Susitna dam project: It’s complicated

There are many questions about this proposed hydroelectric power dam, and some fears, too. When I began to research it earlier this week, I dug up quite a bit of pro and con. I can tell you, it is vastly complicated.

We need a long-term source of energy for the Mat-Su Valley’s and the state’s growing energy wants. Many are being tried, such as wind power, tidal power, solar power and geothermal generated power to name a few. They all have merit and some drawbacks as well, like storage. Battery technology is not up to the demands, and wind and solar fall under this. Tidal power generation still has some hoops to go through. It is taking small steps right now. Geothermal offers some very good results, but so far only on a small-scale experimental basis. With this state’s geological activity, this could go far.

I do not favor coal, even though we have very large coal reserves. It has far too many pollutant issues during mining or burning. But that is another subject altogether for another time.

Nuclear energy is frankly even worse. Until a working fusion reactor is perfected, let’s just keep that shelved.

Natural gas? It appears to be just as complicated, in more ways than one.

So, hydroelectric power seems to fit the bill, but there are also many concerns about this. The issues seem to be as large as the proposed project. And it will be huge — a 700-foot-tall dam with a reservoir about 39 miles long and more than two miles wide. It will generate 600 to 800 megawatts of electricity and cost $4.3 billion to $6 billion — or more — to build. This is not chump change.

The changes to the local environment would be large with this project, and therein lies a great deal of controversy and heated emotions. Some residents of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek are not happy about this. They say damming a major river like the Susitna will have a direct impact on hunting, fishing and tourism in many ways.

There are a lot of complicated issues to juggle. I would like to see such a project become reality, but can it be done at all? The more I read, even while I’m writing this column, the more I wonder about the project.

Should it be built at all? I’m not alone in asking. The state favors it, but the Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives opposes it. Which is right?

It could bring a lot of long-term jobs both during construction and later during production. It could generate clean power for decades. We need that, too. Some say this is old school technology. Yes it is, and frankly it works.

The Valley is growing by leaps and bounds. With that growth comes an increased demand for energy. Something must be done to provide for the long-term energy needs of Southcentral Alaska.

Then there are issues like that of the salmon runs on the Susitna River. How will building a dam affect salmon? According to the Alaska Energy Authority website, the dam is to be located far up stream from the Devil’s Canyon Rapids where very few fish pass. But what about downriver?

Earthquakes and flooding are the next largest issues. We live in earthquake country. Can we build a dam to withstand an earthquake of the magnitude we know Alaska can produce?

One of the fears expressed by some residents of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek is the thought that dam failure resulting from a large quake could send a wall of water straight at them. The fact that a major fault line is about 50 miles away is another source of concern.

Washington state and California are also subject to earthquakes. They have some very large dams and are still doing their thing, so it can be done. With all the knowledge we have gathered, coupled that with modern construction techniques, it is possible.

I’m not saying that it will take away the risk totally. There will always be risks involved. Any large construction project will have impact on the environment. Even the other power projects I have mentioned all involve risks.

Frankly I’m torn about this. I am a member of some of the environmental groups opposing this. Yet the need for energy calls out equally. I guess I must stand back and retain an open mind. I will continue to research this and track what is being said and done. A balance must be found between the needs of the land, the needs of man and the needs of the future. Then we must act on it.

Wasilla resident Daniel D. Grota retired from the U.S. Army after more than 21 years of service.